My Year at the Movies

2007-03-28T14:15:00.000+10:00

1940 Rebecca

Stars: Laurence Olivier and Joan Fontaine

The book that this movie is adapted from is a personal favourite. I remember reading it many years ago and being totally absorbed. Now it almost seems formulaic, but it is the original from which many have followed. As ever, I cannot get enough of Larry on the screen, although he does almost seem to saunter through the part of Maxim.

I found their whirlwind romance a little unconvincing, but that could be a fault of mine, rather than the cinematic portrayal. Ms Fontaine is delightful, capturing the innocence one imagines coming from such a different background to Maxim, and being thrust into life as the lady of such a great estate.

Judith Anderson as Mrs Danvers is truly creepy - just what the role requires, with measured amounts of austerity.

Some people feel that this is not Hitchcock's greatest work, but still remains memorable for its Oscar win. (Personally I always loved "Rope", but probably due to its technical ingenuity, rather than the script.) I enjoyed this immensely - dark and foreboding, but gripping.

2007-01-21T20:08:00.000+11:00

1948 Hamlet

Stars: Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Terence Morgan

It goes without saying that one expects great things from a production of the Bard, but also one featuring the acting pedigree of Laurence Olivier. And he does not disappoint.

Olivier both acted and directed this movie version of the great play, for which he was rewarded with a Best Actor Oscar, as well as the Best Movie for 1948. Critics were harsh when scenes involving Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were cut, and other such notable scenes, but realistically, it is a long play at best, and ancilliary action can be removed to not bore the audience to tears.

I am no great afficionado of productions of Shakespeare, and will happily admit that I may understand possibly only every second line of his verse. But when presented, without the hamming that it can obviously inspire, humbles this observer to understand more than I thought possible. And even moves me in ways I didn’t expect. Until now, the “Alas poor Yorick” speech and even “To be, or not to be”, seemed to be those soliloquies that every two bit actor has played around with – but never truly grasped. But, I felt Hamlet’s suffering in his questioning and his grappling of internal demons. Should one end one’s life, just to stop the pain of living?

Some of the camera work, and hence, direction, confused me. Long, stark views of stone cold walls, with no characters in play, seemed oddly tiresome. But apparently this was considered cutting edge, in the vein of Orson Welles-ian The final scenes leading to Hamlet’s burial seemed quite tedious. The sets, like many “modern” productions brought to the stage, were bare, perhaps forcing one’s eye to the actors themselves. Of course, in Elizabethan times, this may have been the mode of presentation, but personally, it is an artistic device best used sparingly – or not at all.

Ophelia, played by the gorgeous Jean Simmons, was magical and her beauty on the screen helped underscore her sad demise into madness. Finally the swordsmanship by Olivier and Laertes was truly inspiring. It seemed not so much choreographed, as actually, fought with true grit, grace and emotion.

2006-12-26T20:23:00.000+11:00

1944 Going My Way

Stars: Bing Crosby

It seems like one should just naturally like this movie. Bing Crosby in a gentle fatherly role - surely this means that I should just love it. But I didn't. I was bored. It was trite and predictable and overall hum-drum.

Sure, the choir sang well - so they should - but unbelievably well for street kids. Don't get me wrong, I love a good musical, but this was neither musical or dramatic story. It was such a little of both that it did neither genre well. The "good" people were saccharine sweet, and the "bad" people, really weren't that bad.

The supporting cast was adequate, but so glossed over was the story, that I felt no connection with any character. One reviewer on IMDB described it as being "heart-warming without being over-sappy". Did we see the same movie? Or does this say more about my state of mind that this film did not cheer my heart?

2006-12-25T20:22:00.000+11:00

1943 Casablanca

Stars: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid and Claude Rains

Now here is a movie that has it all. Drama, intrigue and romance, with a back story that engages and an ending that leaves people guessing. By the time that Bogart accepted this role, he star had risen and realistically he could no no wrong. The iconic "The Maltese Falcon" two years earlier, had established him as a star. His laconic demeanour and lisp, gave audiences a man that maybe the bad guy - but with a heart of gold. He certainly hasn't the Hollywood looks, or even a charming tone of voice, but somehow, he drew us in. For men, maybe it is the ruggedness of his features, that made him seem real and they could relate. For women, his understated gentleness concealed under a gruff exterior, made him desirable.

Ingrid and Humphrey - although I suppose an unlikely couple - their desire for each other in these roles, seemed to burn up the screen. For time immemorial people will wonder what attracted Ilsa to the dispassionate Victor, who seemed to show her none of the obvious love that Rick had for her. The movie is full of great supporting characters, who could have been seen as a little ridiculous, had it not been for such strong leads. The quirkiness of the supporting cast seems, to me, to add a certain levity, and reality, to the seriousness of the time and place.

There would be few who could say that they dislike this film. I know I like it a lot - probably because it is so many stories in one. I like a war story, and a romance, and a bit of drama, and some witty lines and interesting characters. And this film has it all. Because of this, I think it will always be a classic, since it appeals to so many parts of human nature.

Lines are oft-quoted, incorrectly, from Casablanca, and others are such a part of modern parlance - it is hard to sometimes reconcile that there was a time that Rick hadn't said, "Here's looking at you kid."

2006-09-13T15:00:00.000+10:00

1939 Gone with the Wind

Stars: Clark Gable, Viven Leigh and Olivia de Havilland

What can be said about this movie that hasn’t been said already? To many it is the greatest film ever made. To others it is striking and colourful, but lumbering and beastly. The Academy certainly had their work cut out for them in this year’s selection of movies. The wonder of Gone with the Wind was in competition with the perennial classic “The Wizard of Oz”, Olivier’s version of “Wuthering Heights”, “Goodbye Mr Chips”, which never ceases to make me cry, “Mr Smith goes to Washington”, yet another Frank Capra, to name a few. What made this particular year in movie making so outstanding to have so much good competition, and movies that have lasted through the decades? Was it the spectre of war in Europe that Hollywood worked twice as hard to distract the US audiences from problems abroad?

No matter what the reasons, the film itself is a marvel of movie-making. It attempted to show the pure scale of war, and achieved it admirably with one single and memorable scene. Should anyone ever forget the increasing panorama of the wounded?

Vivien Leigh deservedly won her Oscar for Best Actress. Annoying as her character was (although Prissy aggravates me to the bone!), her determination to come through the war and her constant manipulations and contrivances, is always a marvel. Such a strong female character, whilst retaining her inherent femininity is a quality rarely seen in movies these days. And who else could have been Rhett? Clark Gable personifies the shifty arrogance, masculine hero and debonair playboy, all in one. How Scarlett is able to resist him defies my imagination. I would have easily have been swept off my feet by him at first sight.

And maybe that is why it persists in memory. Women want to be beautiful like Scarlett, and earn the attentions of their own Rhett, and men want to project such confidence that Rhett carries with such an air of grace.

It is not a movie that I desire to see repeatedly, purely on the basis of time. To be transported somewhere else in time and place for over three and a half hours is certainly wonderful. But it can feel like you are living the whole of the civil war in one’s lounge room.

2006-09-12T14:37:00.000+10:00

1938 You can't take it with you

Stars: Lionel Barrymore, James Stewart, Jean Arthur and Ann Miller

Before there was "It's a wonderful life" and "Mr Smith goes to Washington", there was "You can't take it with you". Those on low-carb diets should avoid the saccharine that this movie represents. Don't get me wrong, I love Frank Capra. Despite being Sicilian, he is the quintessential American film-maker whose movies are somewhat wholesome, but brimming full with messages of good will and niceties.

James Stewart became the poster-boy for Capra films, encapsulating all that American audiences wanted to see on their silver screens. His charming, and somewhat goofy, demeanour ensured his success with ordinary people. Not being classically good-looking, and with a unique timbre to his voice, he is often the apple-pie romantic lead. This movie is yet another vehicle for this yearning for innocence by movie-makers.

Barrymore is delightful as the kooky grandfather, whose simple manner belies a great depth of people and the pleasure that life should bring. Of course, it is all too easy to say that the rich are evil and heartless, and those with less, are obviously more in touch emotionally. But in the world of Capra, this distinction is what drives the movie vehicle. I enjoyed Jean Arthur's presence on the screen, and her ability to cope with the snobbery of Stewart's screen parents, and the idiocy of her own relations. Ann Miller annoyed me no end. Her character was meant to be creative and unique, but I just found her socially incompetent and annoying.

One of the other contenders for that year's Oscar was "Boys Town", for which Spencer Tracey won the Best Actor Award (plus a few other awards). There are reviewers who feel that this movie is Capra's masterpiece, I have to disagree. But maybe a movie where everything turns out ok, is just too Hollywood for my taste.

2006-09-11T15:30:00.000+10:00

1937 The Life of Emile Zola

Stars: Paul Muni and Gloria Holden

In high school I studied French, and somewhere along the way I remember hearing about a famous letter entitled "J'accuse". Perhaps I even knew it was written by someone known as Emile Zola. But that was the limit of my knowledge of this person. Thankfully for me, this movie came along to show me something of what this person was about.

Emile Zola was a writer cum philosopher of sorts in France, born in 1840. His best friend and confidante was painter Cezanne. His works were often scandalous, but always note-worthy and brilliantly written. But, as the movie shows, as his wealth and fame grew, his care for matters seemed to wane. His most lasting work is related to the case of a French officer jailed for treason, without evidence. The officer's wife beseeches Zola to act on her behalf and re-open the case. It is as a result of this that he writes his open letter entitled "J'accuse" to the French president.

Some of the acting in this film is a little wooden, but it all seems to lead towards the reading of the letter. The manner of its reading is such to put this letter up there with the great works of oration. The movie is both touching and factually credible.

I am not sure whether I liked it because of the portrayal, or because it was just a really good story. I think a little of both.

"Truth and justice, so ardently longed for! How terrible it is to see them trampled, unrecognised and ignored!"

2006-09-11T15:07:00.000+10:00

Back after these short messages...

Despite my long absence from writing, I have still been watching the movies. This means that I am now quite desperate to catch up in my reviews/comments. When I tell people about this "project", they are often more interested in the movies that *didn't* win anything, rather than those that did. It seems that politics and media has always played a big part in the choice of winners in certain years.

2006-06-08T20:41:00.000+10:00

1936 The Great Ziegfeld

Stars: William Powell, Myrna Loy and Fanny Brice.

Watching these movies has always been planned as being more or less a solo exploit. Often these early movies are not memorable, and many people will not want to watch them. Further, I tend to watch them at odd times and occasions. I had the pleasure of company for this movie - but I think, she may have preferred any number of other options. I was amazed at Ho's persistence, but she herself stated that she kept watching "just to see if it got any better". Sadly, no.

One review I read of this movie called it a "lovable dinosaur", since movies like this are a distant memory. For that we can be all thankful. It certainly captured the heart and soul of the Zeigfeld musical numbers with spiraling staircases, featuring women in ridiculous costumes standing around looking suitably vapid. Perhaps my frustration at the self-indulgence of this pap - which probably encapsulates the style of Zeigfeld appropriately and somewhat accurately - overshadowed the work of the actors in portraying the story of this man's life.

The only thing I really enjoyed was the cameo by Fanny Brice. Having been a devotee of the movie "Funny Girl", which chronicles her life, I was interested to see the real woman after only knowing her through Barbra Streisand's re-telling. And she was wonderful. Shame this movie was about some Zeigfeld character......

2006-06-08T20:40:00.000+10:00

1935 Mutiny on the Bounty

Stars: Clark Gable and Charles Laughton

Having back to back Gable movies was quite delightful for me. Say what you will, I just like seeing him on the screen, although in this telling of the story of Fletcher Christian, I was perhaps a little less moved than previous and subsequent roles of Gable.

Charles Laughton made the role of the vile Captain Bligh his own, and in fact, the modern image of Bligh owes much to his portrayal. He performs with such conviction, that he seems to be so loathsome that mutiny and his eviction from the ship seems almost lenient. But it is a movie, and unfortunately, is accused of being fairly historically inaccurate with the occurences of the time. What is understated is Bligh's superiour skill as a sailor, which is evidenced in his survival following the mutiny. This is not played up in the movie, but quite obviously, since the intent was to portray him as quite the villain. Interestingly, three of the lead roles were each honoured with nominations for Best Actor, but none won.

Overall, the movie didn't capture me, but seemed to smack of a vehicle to show Gable shirtless. Not completely a bad thing, but not necessarily award-worthy.

2006-06-02T22:13:00.000+10:00

1934 It Happened One Night

Stars: Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert

I knew before this started that I was going to like it. It was Frank Capra directing with Clark Gable on the screen - what could possibly be wrong with it? And the answer, nothing. It is a simple love story, where the couple in question dislike each other intensely to start, and then find themselves head over heels in love. Adversity is thrown in their way, but all comes right in the end. Perhaps it seems simplistic now, but still I think that that simplicity enhances it, making it timeless.

One of the stand-out scenes of the movie is of course when spoilt brat Ellie Andrews helps out in the procurement of a ride. She hitches her skirt above her ankle line, to the great delight of a passing motorist. It is innocent in so many ways, but also touching.

The pool of movies that were nominated that year included another Claudette Colbert epic, "Cleopatra", and an Astaire/Rogers classic, "The Gay Divorcee", but honestly, none of them have remained in our memories. So, perhaps this simple movie, was a good choice.

2006-06-02T22:11:00.000+10:00

1932/33 Cavalcade

Stars: Diana Wynyard, Clive Brook.

This movie has proved nearly impossible to source. I have been only able to find a copy of it on Video, and an NTSC version at that - and of course, here in Australia we are PAL. Apparently, Wishtup has a video that will play it - so hold on for this review until I can get away one weekend to his place.

2006-06-02T22:10:00.000+10:00

1931/32 Grand Hotel

Stars: Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Wallace Beery, Lionel Barrymore and Lewis Stone

This movie is billed big - it has a stellar cast and much of the majesty of the long gone days of movie making. But I fear it had little effect on me. I am not sure why. The cast was great, the sets lovely and the acting superb. But still, I remained unmoved by much of it. I think overall the story wasn't enough to grab me, although having loved many Andy Hardy movies, it was amazing seeing Lewis Stone as a sombre war veteran and not as the all-knowing Judge Hardy. Lionel Barrymore's character was delightful, if somewhat tragic, but felt so much more real than Greta Garbo's slightly unbelievable rendition of a former prima ballerina. But Joan Crawford. Oh Joan. She was amazing. She lit up the screen. She was daring, reckless, and full of life. She was so timeless in this movie and her presence alone salvaged the movie for me.

2006-06-02T21:56:00.000+10:00

1930/31 Cimarron

Stars: Richard Dix and Irene Dunne

I had hoped with the acknowledgement of "All Quiet" the year before, maybe the Academy and industry was starting to get the hang of this movie-making business. But alas. It isn't helped from the outset that this winner is a western - never a genre to strike my fancy - but the DVD blurb told it as a "generation-spanning saga....told with an authenticity that moviegoers.. recognised". I crossed fingers and ploughed in.

We meet Yancey and Sabra Cravat on their quest to gain land during the 1889 Oklahoma Land Rush. Through misfortune, they end up in the city, but with the will to start a newspaper in the newly formed town. Their newspaper is controversial in that it talks of equal rights with Indians, but finds success in this back-water. The story then goes on with drama befitting a western type tale.

Where it failed me dismally was in portraying Yancey as some sort of hero full of the pioneering hero. He decides to go off and leave his wife and children to fight wars and such - sending no word home. Meanwhile, Sabra runs the newspaper as editor (although always retaining his name at the top), and becoming a respected member of the community. He returns home briefly to defend the rights of a prostitute, and then whips off again, on some mission of his own design. Many years later, near the close of the story, we see Sabra, now being voted into public office, having brought up the family solo, and continued running the newspaper. And all this time, never once having heard one word from her renegade husband, but remaining faithful to him regardless. She erects a monument to him and those like him with their pioneering spirit.

It made my blood boil. Spirit, I ask you!?! He had no spirit - she was the one with spirit! The whole movie seemed to be in awe of him, but she was the one who pioneered, quietly at home - while he rode the prairies and left her without support. But that said, I shouldn't revile a movie based on political and personal objections. Was it any good? Hmm, not so easy to say. I felt most of the acting was stiff and objectionable. The portrayal of the town as it grew over the time period was perhaps the most impressive part of the whole film.

2006-05-29T21:06:00.000+10:00

1929/30 All Quiet on the Western Front

Stars: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim, John Wray, Slim Summerville and William Bakewell

There is something ominous in watching a movie about World War 1, made before the spectre of World War 2 was even a notion of occurring. The characters in this war epic are followed from their schooldays, through basic training and into the war. They grow and become hardened by the war and change from being naively patriotic, to questioning why they are there. It is incredibly anti-war, with occasional lapses into melodrama and shmaltz. It is about the German occupation in the first War, but doesn't dwell on the how and why of the war. But simply the decision to War is made by government officials, but it is the foot soldiers, who know little of the machinations far above them, who fight the faceless enemies. These enemies, who they surmise, are just as mystified by the reasons they are there; hungry, cold, tired and desperately wanting a reason for their involvement.

Lew Ayres, playing the lead role of Paul Baumer, seemed to be ultimately inspired by the film, and in subsequent years by being a conscientious objector in WW2. Unfortunately, this earned him the ire of the American public, and many theatres refused to show his work in future years. His portrayal of the motivated youth, turned cynical and tired soldier became his legacy.

2006-05-28T17:02:00.000+10:00

1928/9 The Broadway Melody

Stars: Charles King, Anita Page and Bessie Love

When I purchased this movie, it was part of a set of "Best Picture - Musicals", and shares company in its box with "My Fair Lady" and "Gigi". So my standards were high. Unfortunately.

The only thing that really makes this a musical, is the fact that there is indeed one song sung in it. Over and over again. It follows a sister act - ludicrously lacking in talent - but with get up and go aplenty. They try to make it on Broadway, but the charms of the younger sister are soon the only thing that makes it - and only because she is pretty holding a banner during one musical number on the stage.

Hyper-critical as I maybe, the older sister played by Bessie Love, was delightful. She delivered her lines as naturally as if she was living the moment in front of the screen. I was happy to note that she got a nomination for her performance. Sadly, much of her real career was delivered in silent films, and by 1931, her major work was over. She spent the remainder of her career appearing in small and ever more forgettable roles.

2006-05-28T17:01:00.000+10:00

1927/8 Wings

Stars: Clara Bow, Charles Rogers and Richard Arlen

The inaugural Best Picture Oscar went to this silent epic about a group of friends from a small town, making good in the war. The storyline is pretty simple, but underscored with a number of fighter plane scenes that must have been ludicrously difficult to film. Not being a connoisseur of the silent era, it was interesting to see how I would be wooed by the characters, using no voice, and only the backing of a bad musical soundtrack. To tell the truth, this was my first silent movie, and more than likely will be my last.

It wasn't awful, but the over-acting was extraordinary. The apparent rivalry between the two main leads was over some woman whose indifference to both of their affections was in contrast to the over-attentiveness of the long-suffering Clara/Mary. The most disturbing thing for me in this movie is to note how much our social tolerances have changed. When David leaves for the war, he faces the awkward goodbyes with his rather stiff parents. No loving embrace from his father, or tears from his mother. But shockingly, he kissed his mother goodbye. On the mouth. Eww.

2006-05-17T08:09:00.000+10:00

In the beginning....

I don't know what made me decide on this as something I just HAD to do. Maybe it was a lack of something else that would probably be far more fulfilling on some sort of emotional or spiritual level. Maybe it was a sense of achievement that I needed to acquire. But I decided to go to the Movies. Not just once, but 77 times. I do love the Movies, but what made me decide to make some sort of resolution around I shall never know. I set myself the task of seeing every movie that has won the "Best Picture" Oscar since inception.

I must admit that I was surprised what movies did NOT make the list of the so-called best-ever movies. Where was Citizen Kane, The Ten Commandments or African Queen on this list of winners? How did An Affair to Remember, Singing in the Rain or A Clockwork Orange not make the cut? Would I agree with the judges decisions with the selected movies being worthy of going down in history as something significant? No matter what the reasons, I wanted to see all the supposed "best's" and judge for myself.

Over the years of movie watching, there were many on the list that I had already seen. But some of them were a long time ago and my memory of them biased by time. So, I thought it best to rewatch all of them - despite any recent viewing - with a fresh approach.

And so began my year at the movies.

First came the acquisition of the movies. Some I owned. Some I could rent from my local and ever-faithful "Blockbuster". Many I knew I would have to purchase. I began by looking over the list of movies. Briefly I was daunted by the task I had assigned myself. Briefly. But I was more bothered by the fact that there were so many that I hadn't heard of. I didn't like to think that I was so ignorant that so many movies had escaped my attention or notice. My youth was not spent wasting time on sports and such, but in watching old movies. But generally they were old movie musicals. I abandoned my reality and preferred a life where one could sing and tap any care away. Clearly, some of the cheesy musicals of days gone by had not been recognized as cinematic masterpieces - although they certainly are amongst those movies that people remember and recognize. Then again, maybe it is just me.